COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 10:25 a.m. - - - Bill 070002 - Held at request of sponsor. Bill 070003 - Re zoning designations of area bounded by Aramingo, railroad right-of-way, Del. Expressway, Luzerne, Almond, Wheatsheaf. Bills 070006, 08, 09, 10, 11, - Gaming- related legislation. 12 (Full text of all bills attached hereto.) COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Anna C. Verna, Chair Blondell Reynolds-Brown Darrell L. Clarke William K. Greenlee Frank DiCicco Jack Kelly James F. Kenney Donna Reed-Miller Brian J. O'Neill Daniel J. Savage - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 INDEX - 2/21/07 RULES COMMITTEE WITNESS Bill 070003 William Kramer, Planning Commission..... Bills 070006, 070008 through 07013 Romulo Diaz, Jr., City Solicitor........ Thomas Chapman, City Planning........... 45 Steve Szapor, Innovation Group President 77 SugarHouse Casino Representatives Bob Sheldon, President.................. 96 Greg Carlin, CEO........................ 110 Melanie Shaw, Community Relations....... 116 Dan Keating, Keating Building Corp...... 122 Foxwoods Casino, Philadelphia Entertainment Developer Partners, LP Jeffrey B. Rottwitt..................... 139 William G. Schwartz..................... 139 Panel #1 Anne Dicker, Casino-Free Philadelphia... 184 Daniel Hunter, " " " ... 201 Caryn Hunt, " " " ... 206 Jeff Benedict, Author................... 185 President, Connecticut Alliance Against Casino Gambling Panel #2 Joe Mahoney, Phil. Chamber of Commerce.. 224 Delilah Winder, African-American........ 251 Chamber of Commerce Pat Coulter, Urban League of Phila...... 256 3 INDEX - 2/21/07 RULES COMMITTEE WITNESS Panel #3 J. Paylor, Longshoremen's Assoc......... 260 Renee Goodwin, Pennsport Civic Assoc.... 280 Mary Reinhart, " Resident....... 289 Panel #4 Ryan Boyer, Secretary-Treasurer......... 295 Local 332 (speaking in place of Sam Staten) Panel #5 Jeff Rush, QVNA President............... 299 Kathy Dilonardo, QV Resident............ 304 Richard Wolk, QVNA Board................ 310 Panel #6 Richard Levins, Fishtown Resident....... 314 Philip Bogaten, Neighbor/Land Owner..... 322 Eric Rudy, Fishtown Athletic League..... 323 Panel #7 A.J. Thompson, Fishtown Resident........ 327 Matt Pappajohn, Fishtown Resident....... 338 Joe McNulty, New Kensington CDC......... 344 Matt Ruben, No. Libs. Neighbors Assoc. 352 Panel #8 Bill Walsh, Gr. Phila. Hotel Assoc. .... 373 Wanda Paul, Convention & Visitors Bureau 379 Jack Ferguson, " " " " 381 Ahmeenah Young, Penn. Convention Center 398 D. Diamond, Gr. Phil. Tourism Marketing 404 Panel #9 S. Haney, Southwark Historic District... 410 G. Piccirilli, Bella Vista Civic Assoc. 420 J. Schiavo, Old City Civic Assoc. ...... 429 4 INDEX (cont'd ) - 2/21/07 RULES COMMITTEE WITNESS Panel #10 Chris Meck, Passyunk Square Civic Assoc. 437 Tanya Rorke, " " " " 440 (testimony read by unidentified person) Paul Boni, Society Hill Civic Assoc. ... 445 Susan Patrone, Passyunk Sq. Civic Assoc. 454 Panel #11 Ken Gregory, Queen Village resident..... 461 Reverend Dick Ulman, Private Citizen.... 463 Marc Stier, Neighborhood Networks....... 466 Panel #12 Vern Anastasio, Bella Vista United...... 471 Henry Lewandowski, Whitman Comm. Council 477 State Representative Dennis M. O'Brien 487 5 2/21/02 RULES - BILL 070002
Good morning, everyone. I would ask everyone who is standing to please take a seat, we do have the balcony open for any overflow. Thank you. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read Bill No. 10 070002. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 12 070002, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Orthodox Street, Garden Street, Lefevre Street, Richmond Street, Buckius Street, and the Delaware River.
Thank you very much. At the request of the sponsor, this bill is being held. Mr. McPherson will please read Bill No. 070003. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 25 070003, an ordinance to amend the 6 2/21/07 RULES COMMITTEE BILL 070003 Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Aramingo Avenue, a railroad right-of-way, Delaware Expressway, Luzerne Street, Almond Street, and Wheatsheaf Lane. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 21 070003, which was introduced by Councilmember Krajewski on January 23, 2007. Bill No. 070003 rezones a parcel of land bounded by Aramingo 7 2/21/07 RULES COMMITTEE BILL 070003 Avenue, a railroad right-of-way, the Delaware Expressway, Luzerne Street, Almond Street, and Wheatsheaf Lane from a zoning designation of G-2, General Industrial, to a zoning designation of ASC, area shopping center. The purpose of this zoning change is to allow for commercial development on this site. This site has been a part of the Tioga Pipe Company for many years, and Tioga Pipe has re located outside of the City and is trying to obtain development for its former operations site. The proposed change is consistent with the existing pattern of land use on Aramingo Avenue, and therefore, this site is not considered as a continued viable industrial site. Accordingly, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 20, 2007, recommended that Bill 070003 be approved. I would be happy to answer any 8 2/21/07 RULES COMMITTEE BILL 070003 questions of the committee. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there presently a shopping center being proposed for this site? And if so, who is the proposed development?
No, ma'am, there is no proposal for development at this site at this time. It is a request from the Tioga Pipe Company to change the zoning classification to allow for easier sale of the property. Excuse me.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you. 9 2/21/07 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING (070003)
I would suggest that before we hear the other bills on the scheduled list that we go into a public meeting regarding Bill No. 070003. And the Chair recognizes Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move that Bill No. 070003 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension as to allow a reading at the next session of Council. (Motion seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 070003 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and further that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council 10 2/21/07 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING (070003) session. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. * * * 11 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13
We will now again go into our public meeting regarding the gaming bills, and I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the following bills: 070006, 070008, 070009, 070010, 070011, 070012, and 070013. Bill No. 070006, an ordinance 10 amending Section 14-1605 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Regulated Uses," by adding "Licensed Gaming Facilities" as a regulated use, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 070008, an ordinance 16 amending Chapter 14-400 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Commercial Entertainment District," by deleting the provision authorizing the City Planning Commission to approve temporary facilities; by removing licensed gaming facilities and offtrack betting facilities as permitted uses; and by deleting any provision that may undermine the Philadelphia local zoning 12 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 controls; all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 070009, an ordinance 5 to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Reed Street, Tasker Street (extended), Christopher Columbus Boulevard, and the Delaware River. Bill No. 070010, an ordinance 12 amending Chapter 14-400 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Commercial Entertainment Districts," by prohibiting districts within one mile of one another; providing additional restrictions for gross floor area, open area, and waterfront setbacks requirements; and providing for additional signage controls, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 070011, an ordinance 23 amending Section 14-1600 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section 13 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 entitled "Prohibition on Licensed Gaming Facilities," prohibiting the erection, construction, alteration, or use of licensed gaming facilities and providing that no variance may be granted from such prohibition, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 070012, an ordinance 10 amending Chapter 14-1400 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Entertainment District," by providing that no ordinance designating a Commercial Entertainment District may be enacted unless a Neighborhood Improvement District has first been created and includes within its service area the proposed Commercial Entertainment District, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 070013, an ordinance amending Section 14-1605 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulated Uses," by prohibiting regulated uses within 1,000 feet of any 14 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 Commercial Entertainment District and adding "Payday Lenders" as a regulated use, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. I would like the record to reflect that we do have a quorum present. To my extreme left is Councilman Kelly, Councilman Savage, and Councilman Greenlee. To my extreme right is Councilman Kenney and also Councilman Clarke. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
First I'd like to thank everyone for coming today. It is truly appreciated. Today, Madam President, it's going to be a long day, but I think we 15 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 might actually accomplish something today, and it wouldn't happen without your support. The question is: What are we supporting? What am I trying to do? The intent behind this legislation has been questioned, and I wanted to make myself perfectly clear. " I didn't take that as an ethnic slur. To that extent, he's right, although it's a bit more thought out than that. This package of legislation includes a Plan A, but it also includes a Plan B and C and D. It attacks the issue of gaming from a lot of different angles, and that's a good thing. We all know that if any of these bills are enacted, the operators are going to challenge these initiatives in court, just like we're challenging 16 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission Board's decision in the court. We may lose some of these challenges, just like we might lose our appeal. So be it, because we might win also. That's the great thing about the courts: You never know what the person in the black robe is going to do, and you always know that there's going to be someone listening, because at least in part, that's why we're so angry. The Gaming Act passed in the middle of the night, the General Assembly voted four times to preempt the City's local zoning controls, and I should note that we finally won that one, and not because of any one legislator, but because of the unity and strength of the people in this room and those who couldn't make it here today. When the board made their the final decision, they did so in the face of logic, despite numerous public comments 17 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 to the contrary to their wards. All in all, this process has been screwed up from the start, and none of us in the City has had a voice. It's time to make sure we get that voice back. And if Harrisburg ignores us, then maybe a judge will force them to listen. That's what this package of legislation is about. That's what plans A through D are, and that's why I hope this committee gives every bill a favorable recommendation and suspends the rules. What are the plans? Plan A is Bill No. 070011. It bans gaming as a use completely, with no 19 option for a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustments. It directly challenges the State's authority to dictate business and industry in Philadelphia. And I know it will be challenged as an exclusionary zoning, 18 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 and I admit the chances of it holding up in court are slim, but it's time to stand up and be counted. If Plan A fails, however, there is a Plan B; in other words, we won't have all of our eggs in one basket. Plan B is Bill No. 070008. By passing Bill No. 070008, we will delete gaming as a use for the Commercial Entertainment District, better known as a CED. That means we can put the underlying CED controls in place but not allow gaming by right and still require public review and input via the Zoning Board, and it gives people another opportunity to challenge the issuance of the gaming permit in a court of law. Plan C, which is Bill No. 21 070012, should be voted out of committee and held on the Council's calendar for final passage. If Plans A and B fail, I will call this bill for a vote to help guarantee that the near neighbors of 19 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 these facilities have a choice on whether they want them built or not. It sets up a de facto referenda process for those directly impacted by the site. Bill No. 070006 is Plan D and requires that gaming facilities should obtain a zoning certificate from the Zoning Board of Adjustments. The remaining bill should be passed irrespective of our opinion on gaming specifically. Bill No.
070013 provides important controls for the near neighborhoods, if these facilities are ever built, by providing restrictions for regulated uses. " Bill No. 070010 provides more specific controls and closes loopholes that developers might attempt to use to circumvent the CED's original intent. And finally, Bill No. 070009 is an attempt to block any further attempt 20 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 by Foxwoods to pull zoning permits. It came to our attention that the developer tried to pull permits in January and then intended to file a use variance. I don't think that's appropriate, and the effort continues to show that Foxwoods is less than honorable. That's the package. It may hold up in the courts and it may not, but maybe most important is that this package of legislation finally gives Philadelphians a voice that the General Assembly, the Gaming Board, and the Governor never gave them. That's our job. I'm proud to do it, and I'm happy that we're here having this discussion today. Thank you, Madam President. )
Thank you, Councilman. I would like the record to reflect that Councilwoman Miller has 21 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 joined the committee. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call our first witness. MR. McPHERSON: The first witnesses are Romulo Diaz and Thomas Chapman. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Good morning.
Please identify yourself for the record. Do you have copies of your testimony? CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: We do, Madam President, and I believe they've been distributed.
We don't have them. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: I don't know if they have been made available, but we will make sure that the members of the committee get their copies immediately. 22 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13
Thank you. You may proceed. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Thank you Madam President. Again, good morning Madam President and members of the committee. I am City Solicitor Romulo Diaz, Jr. 's 070006 and 070008 through 070013. I'm accompanied by Thomas Chapman of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The introduction of gaming in the Commonwealth and in Philadelphia represents an historic economic development opportunity. 5 billion annually in gaming taxes and will use that money to reduce property and wage taxes; spur economic development, including expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center; and support the State's race-horsing 23 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 industry. In Philadelphia, the development of just the first phase of the two casinos will employ approximately 1,000 construction workers who will earn $34 million in wages. Once open, the casinos will permanently employ approximately 2,000 workers mostly from Philadelphia, and will spin off economic development that will employ thousands more. And our hospitality industry is excited about the casinos as another visitor attraction and the funding for Convention Center expansion. The City will receive 4 percent of the gross revenue at these casinos as host fees. The first $5 million each year will go to the Philadelphia School District to enhance the public education of Philadelphia's children. The remaining 20 to $25 million will be an annual addition to the City's General Fund. In the proposed Five-Year Plan, 24 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 these revenues are projected to begin in fiscal 2009. To be sure, gaming (indiscernible) presents the City with the challenge of balancing communitywide interest with the issues that will face the neighborhoods directly impacted by the two casinos. Notwithstanding the views of some outside Philadelphia, we believe it is appropriate for the City to retain local land use control to assure a proper balance is struck. The City is the expert in this area, as we have demonstrated time and time again, be it the stadium complex development, the Comcast Center, or numerous other local development projects. But we are only able to exercise our authority in a manner that complements rather than thwarts the state statutory scheme. The Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act and the 25 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 regulations promulgated thereunder set forth a comprehensive regulatory framework. Section 1202 of the Gaming Act vests the Gaming Control Board with general and sole regulatory authority over the conduct of gaming or related activities. Section 1304(b)1 of the Gaming Act dictates that two casinos will be licensed in Philadelphia and that each casino will be licensed by the Gaming Control Board. Section 1329 of the Gaming Act further makes clear that casinos cannot be relocated by any entity other than the Gaming Control Board. The decision of where the casinos go is a State decision exercised by the Gaming Control Board. The City's powers in this regard are limited. We must respect the Gaming Control Board's licensing decisions -- decision, or else we will face almost certain defeat in 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through the courts and inevitably will lose any local land use control. The Commercial Entertainment District zoning classification created by City Council last year on recommendation of the Philadelphia Gaming Advisory Task Force is a local regulatory framework that I believe is consistent with the comprehensive State scheme. The CED framework will allow casinos and other future major entertainment developments to be undertaken in a responsible manner with reasonable standards and community input. Amendments to the CED classification are any other local land use authority must be structured to avoid conflict with the Commonwealth statutory requirements.
To do otherwise would invite unnecessary litigation as well as legal and legislative challenges to land use control. 27 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Finally, to the extent that such litigation delays the opening of Philadelphia casinos, there could be significant impacts on the revenue projections in the proposed Five-Year Plan. I urge you to consider these potentially serious fiscal implications when considering the changes to the CED framework represented by these bills. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on this important issue, and would be pleased to answer any questions with respect to the specific bills after Mr. Chapman presents the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
So, Mr. Diaz, in essence, are you telling the committee that the bills before us are not legal? CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: I am not saying that, Madam President. What I am trying to suggest is 28 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through that there is a continuum of concerns on my part about the ultimate review of those bills should they be enacted. The bill, for example, that would preempt zoning entirely for gaming in the City of Philadelphia perhaps is at one extreme end of that continuum, and I would have to say that were it enacted by City Council, that my concerns about the practical effects of that bill and my concerns about the authority that has been expressed in legislation adopted by the General Assembly would mean that I would be hard-pressed to argue in support of that particular bill as to its effects, the practical effects. On the other hand, I understand -- and I have shared with Councilmembers previously -- that as City Solicitor, I represent City Council and have a duty of loyalty to City Council to attempt to effectuate its legislative will. I believe that City 29 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 Council's legislative will is deserving 3 of respect and deference by the courts. 4 But in the context of a very 5 comprehensive and complete regulatory 6 framework that has been established by 7 the Commonwealth, it is my opinion with 8 respect to that particular bill -- and I 9 use that only as an example -- that I 10 would have to say in all candor that I 11 would find it highly unlikely that the 12 courts would ultimately determine that 13 such a bill would be legal. That is a court determination. My responsibility, I believe, is to -- is to respect the legislative will, but I also believe that I have a responsibility to be candid and to share with Councilmembers today my concerns about an ultimate decision of the courts. And it is my conclusion that such a bill would be most likely struck down by the courts as preempted by the Commonwealth comprehensive regulatory 30 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 scheme for gaming in the City of 3 Philadelphia. 4
Thank 5 you. 6 The Chair recognizes Councilman 7 Clarke. 8
Thank you, 9 Madam President. 10 Good morning, gentlemen. 11 WITNESS PANEL: Good morning. 12
Mr. Diaz, 13 your response to the Council President, the assumption is that it's an informal response, and we have not asked for an official Solicitor's ruling; am I correct? CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: That is correct.
So is it suggested that we ask for an official Solicitor's ruling on each individual bill that's been before us today? CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: I -- I'm not attempting -- let me just be very 31 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through direct about this because I know it's an important issue; it's of great concern to members of this Council, and it's certainly of great consequence to the City generally. It is -- this is an area which is -- has been of great interest and ongoing dialogue between myself and my office and members of City Council. And it is in that -- it's in that context that I want to be very careful about not overstepping what I believe is an appropriate bound at this early juncture in connection with the bills. I'm not suggesting that I should be asked for a legal opinion, but if asked, I would certainly provide one to you or other members of Council. But I am very concerned about the practical implications of these bills because it's entirely conceivable at some point down the road -- not on the face of some of these bills, but down the road, as factual determinations 32 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 are made, that an L&I inspector, for 3 example, or an L&I permit official would 4 be put to the question of whether a 5 permit should be issued or not. And 6 it's at that juncture that I believe the 7 facts as they will be known at that 8 time, which I don't have before me 9 today, might very well indicate that a 10 permit could not be issued. 11 In that circumstance where we 12 do not issue a permit and there is an 13 appeal under the Gaming Act to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, I believe that the court would look at the reasonableness of the -- of the standards that would be implemented by the City of Philadelphia in making that decision and how we would have implemented those standards. And I believe that it would be much, much harder to sustain an appeal on behalf of the City of Philadelphia's authority if we were to be found unreasonable, as I believe we might be 33 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 found with regard to a bill that says 3 you may not have a gaming establishment 4 anywhere in the City of Philadelphia. 5 And I look at this from the 6 perspective of the Commercial 7 Entertainment District legislation which 8 was crafted upon the recommendation of 9 the Philadelphia Gaming Advisory Task 10 Force. 11 And it seems to me, from all 12 that I have reviewed as to the state 13 regulatory scheme and that particular legislation, that it is a proper balancing of our interests, it is a reasonable extension of our local land use controls. I believe that it should sustain court review if it were ever challenged. I don't have that same sense of confidence, Councilman Clarke, with respect to some of the other bills before this committee today.
Did the Pennsylvania legislature or the Gaming 34 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Reform Commission review the CED that was proposed earlier? CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Yes, Councilman Clarke. In fact, the Gaming Advisory Task Force developed a model regulatory bill for local land use controls, and the CED legislation ultimately passed by City Council last year is essentially in conformity with that recommendation. We've reviewed it very closely. We believe that it's a very strong piece of legislation. I believe that ultimately, the court -- that is, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court -- would find it to be reasonable, and that is the process that we have, I believe, previously provided legal opinions to Council on. And we continue to stand by that opinion.
Did they respond formally, or was it just a review and no response? I mean, I'm not clear on how 35 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through that -- I know there was some discussion during the course of the hearings about whether or not this allowed us to circumvent the state preemption, and if we had not done something that the State would have preempted us totally as it relates to rezoning. Was there a formal response from them with respect to that? CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: No, and let me -- I think I understand your question, Councilman. Let me see if I can respond to it this way. Once the Supreme Court struck down the provision that would have preempted local land use controls at all --
Right. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: -- there were a series of steps taking by the General Assembly, some in the General Assembly, to essentially fix the problems that had been found to exist with that provision by the Pennsylvania 36 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Supreme Court. Essentially, the Supreme Court said that there was a standard list delegation of legislative authority to the Gaming Control Board in making decisions about which comments or recommendations of local governments it would take into account in making a licensing decision. And once that preemption provision was struck down by the court, there was nothing to take its place short of a new legislative provision that was being considered by the General Assembly. Ultimately, there was no 18 replacement for that preemption, but there is a provision in the Gaming Act which provides that any appeal with respect to local land use issues -- and I can provide you with that particular language, but for the sake of brevity, any appeals taken from local land use decisions is one for which the 37 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 Pennsylvania Supreme Court has original 3 jurisdiction. 4
Right. 5 CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: And 6 appeals will go immediately to the 7 Pennsylvania Supreme Court on any 8 decisions related to those actions. 9
Okay. 10 CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: So there 11 has not been an opinion as such issued 12 by the General Assembly or the Gaming 13 Control Board. But the CED legislation, which originated in recommendations of the Philadelphian Gaming Advisory Task Force, we believed then, and I served as general counsel to that task force, and I believe now that that represents a reasonable balancing of the interests of the State with regard to comprehensive regulation framework for gaming in the Commonwealth and the local interests of Philadelphia and its citizens to ensure that any casinos that are constructed 38 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through are done so in a way that respects our local issues without thwarting the state regulatory efforts.
Okay. One 6 last question, and I know that other 7 members are interested in having 8 questions. 9 Mr. Diaz, I'm assuming that 10 you're going to be asked to give a legal 11 opinion on all of the bills probably. 12 I'm a little concerned -- and I'm -- 13 please don't take this as me questioning your credibility and your sincerity in your job -- that the testimony references the possibilities and the opportunities for gaming in the City of Philadelphia. And from my perspective, it would probably have been better if you had not given that portion of the testimony because you are the legal representative of both the Council and the Mayor. And I would have felt a lot more comfortable if you didn't have that 39 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through part of your earlier testimony. (Applause.)
And, again, 5 I want to emphasize, 'cause I know you 6 quite well, all right? And I know you 7 are an extremely credible person, and in 8 no way, shape, or form am I trying to 9 imply, and I'm hoping no one takes it 10 that I'm trying to imply that you won't 11 do your job in the appropriate way. 12 But when you proceed with the 13 legal opinion, can we base it soley on the legal facts as it relates to this legislation and the state preemption issue, there will be, you know, no 17 reference at all about anything else other than the pure merits of the law. (Applause.) CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Councilman, let me respond this way. I think I was very careful in crafting the testimony despite less than hours -- 24 substantially less than 24 hours to craft it. 40 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 I attempted, and I think I succeeded, in being clear that with regard to the legal issues I had concerns and expressed them with regard to the other issues. They are offered for your -- for your consideration. They are not legal factors that I would take into account in connection with the legal opinion as to the efficacy of particular bills. Having said that, I think it would be remiss of me, appearing with Mr. Chapman today with regard to these bills, not to indicate that the revenues that are being projected from these casino operations are not only important to the Commonwealth but also to the City of Philadelphia treasury. And, in fact, it is my belief that as much of the incentive for the comprehensiveness of the state regulatory scheme in order to allow for the revenues generated, for example, 41 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through from Act 71, the Gaming Act, to be available to make the programs that are authorized with regard to Act 72 with respect to Commonwealth tax reductions possible. And so I don't want to overlook that fact, but that certainly would not be the basis for a legal conclusion and opinion rendered upon request to this council.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Diaz. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Good morning, Councilman.
You kind of answered this question in one of 42 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Councilman Clarke's earlier questions, but I -- just so I'm really clear, in your statement, you say we will face almost certain defeats in the courts and inevitably will lose any land use control. Now, you talked about the Commercial Entertainment District. Could be a little more specific as far as what else you're referring to there that we could lose if this gets to the courts in your opinion? CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Well, my -- my -- my concern is not only in connection with how expansive a court might render its decision --
Mm-hmm. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: -- if there is an appeal taken from a contrary decision on issuing a permit, for example, for a construction.
Mm-hmm. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: But also, it's to the response that might be 43 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through anticipated from the General Assembly.
Mm-hmm. 4 CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: We know 5 that the effort to prevent the General 6 Assembly from actually adopting as part 7 of revisions to the Gaming Act, but to 8 prevent the adoption of complete 9 preemption of the City of Philadelphia 10 with regard to local land use control 11 was very much a real possibility in the 12 last session of the General Assembly. 13 I think it would be hard to avoid the possibility that that issue would arise again in the context of litigation associated with a denial of -- what I would consider to be an unreasonable denial of permits to gaming operators and licensees in the City of Philadelphia. I've tried to suggest what I think a reasonable basis might be. I think a reasonable basis would be where there is a conflict between the CED legislation, which both licensees have 44 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through committed in hearings before the Gaming Control Board and in their expressions to the City Administration to adhering to, I think that a denial of some approval consistent with the CED legislation, I believe the City would have a strong base for having that denial upheld. On the other hand, I believe that a denial which is based upon on an across-the-board prevention of casinos operating in Philadelphia would be one that would be skeptically reviewed and received by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and I think would most likely reignite efforts to preempt the City of Philadelphia's rightful responsibility and rightful opportunity to review local land use issues that affect its citizens.
Okay. So you weren't just talking about the courts; you were talking about what the legislature might do. That's what I 45 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through thought, but I wanted to make sure. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
6 You're welcome. 7 Are there any other questions 8 from members of the committee? 9 (No questions.) 10
Good morning once 13 again, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I'm here today to testify on behalf of the Planning Commission regarding Bills 070006 and 070008 through 070013. Before the committee this morning are seven bills introduced by Councilman DiCicco that would amend the Philadelphia Code as it relates to gaming or to the sites where gaming is proposed. In December 2005, we testified 46 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through before this committee in support of adoption of a new zoning classification, the Commercial Term District. Bill No. " The creation of this new zoning classification was one of the many recommendations of the Philadelphia Gaming Advisory Task Force. The purpose of this zoning classification is to allow for the orderly development of major entertainment facilities, including licensed gaming facilities, in the City of Philadelphia. While Bill No. 051028 added the provisions of the new district to the Zoning Code, it did not map the district anywhere in the City; that still requires further action by City Council. Since enactment of CED legislation and in accordance with the General Assembly's July 2004 mandate of two casinos in the City of Philadelphia, 47 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 the State Gaming Control Board has 3 selected the two licensees who will 4 operate those casinos. 5 The arrival of new businesses 6 that will provide thousands of new jobs 7 could be the most important development 8 in the City in the past 50 years. And 9 accordingly, this city has taken 10 appropriate steps to plan for this 11 industry. 12 We continue to believe that the 13 City must act effectively and responsibly to ensure that the arrival of casinos is managed in a manner that maximizes returns and minimizes impacts on the people of Philadelphia. At this point, I would like to direct my testimony to the specifics of the bills on today's hearing list. Bill 070006 would amend Section 22 14-1605 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code by allowing licensed gaming facilities as a regulated use. The regulated uses section of the Zoning Code places a 48 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 number of restrictions on uses that, by 3 their very nature, have been recognized 4 as having negative impacts on 5 surrounding communities, especially when 6 these uses are concentrated in a. 7 Zoning Board of Adjustments approval is 8 almost always required for establishment 9 of a new regulated use anywhere in the 10 City. 11 We believe that the enactment 12 of Bill No. 070006 is unnecessary for 13 several reasons. The provisions of the Commercial Entertainment District defines licensed gaming facilities and sets forth the rules under such facilities can be established in the City of Philadelphia. Thus, gaming remains a prohibited use and not a regulated use everywhere in the City except on properties zoned CED. Because any CED district development plan will require two ordinances of City Council and review by 49 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 the Planning Commission, we believe that 3 there is sufficient regulation of such 4 uses. 5 The Planning Commission at its 6 meeting of February 20, 2007, 7 recommended that Bill No. 070006 not be 8 approved. 9 Bill No. 070008 would amend the 10 provisions of the Commercial 11 Entertainment District chapter of the 12 Zoning Code by deleting the definition 13 of "licensed gaming facilities" by removing license gaming facilities and offtrack betting as permitted use by deleting provisions authorizing the Planning Commission to improve temporary facilities and by deleting certain other provisions.
Removing the definition of "licensed gaming facilities" and removing license gaming facilities and offtrack betting as permitted uses under the provisions of the CED results in a situation where these uses would not be 50 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through permitted as of right anywhere in the City of Philadelphia. The creation of the CED was part of the City's effort to maintain zoning authority regarding the development of the new casinos. While it is true under state law that the City could not, and cannot, choose locations where gaming is permitted, we believe that the provisions of the CED allow for significant and appropriate development controls. The deletion of the paragraph authorizing the Planning Commission to approve temporary facilities is appropriate cleanup, as neither casino plans a temporary facility. We do not believe it is necessary to remove Sections 14-14052 and 3, nor do we believe it's problematic to do so. With these exceptions, the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 20, 2007, recommended that Bill 25 No. 070008 not be approved. 51 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 Bill No. 070009 would amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changes the zoning designation of the area bounded by Reed Street, Tasker Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, and the Delaware River from the existing C-3 Commercial to partly R-10A Residential and partly C-3 Commercial. This property is the site of the proposed Foxwoods Casino. R-10A residential zoning is a classification that is mapped primarily in the older rowhome neighborhoods of the City and permits single-family dwellings on 1440 square-feet lots. This classification does not permit commercial or entertainment uses and is not an appropriate use of this large waterfront parcel. We do, however, believe a zoning change to the CED classification is appropriate, and we expect the Administration shortly to transmit legislation to rezone the site to the 52 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 CED zoning classification. 3 The Planning Commission at its 4 meeting of February 20, 2007, 5 recommended that Bill No. 070009 not be 6 approved. 7 Bill No. 070010 would amend the 8 provisions of the Commercial 9 Entertainment District by prohibiting 10 CED districts within one mile of one 11 another by adding additional 12 restrictions on gross floor area, open 13 space, and waterfront setbacks, and by amending signage controls. The establishment of a provision requiring a one-mile separation between parcels designated CED would not impact the sites selected in December by the Gaming Control Board because those sites are separated by more than one mile. However, in drafting the CED legislation, it was anticipated that CED districts could and would be mapped in other locations other than casino sites. 53 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 We believe that that amendment would 3 discourage the use of the CED zoning 4 designation beyond the two current 5 gaming sites. 6 In the absence of this 7 amendment, Council would continue to 8 have the option to use or not use the 9 zoning designation as it deems 10 appropriate in the future. We thus do 11 not support this amendment to the 12 district. 1. This provision of the CED designation allows flexibility where conditions warrant some relief from a setback requirement. This provision remains appropriate because City Council is required to approve in the plan of development -- the plan of development, rather, under the provisions of the CED after receiving a recommendation of the Planning Commission so that any such relief would come under considerable 54 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 scrutiny. Accordingly, we did not 3 support this amendment to the district. 4 There are no objections to the 5 amendments proposed for Sections 6 14-14062 and 3 regarding gross floor 7 area and open area.
8 With the exception noted above, 9 the Planning Commission at its meeting 10 of February 20, 2007, recommended that 11 Bill No. 0700010 not be approved. 12 Bill No. 070011 would amend 13 Section 14-1600 of the Philadelphia Code by prohibiting the establishment ment of licensed gaming facilities in the City of Philadelphia and by prohibiting the Zoning Board of Adjustments, except where the denial of a variance would affect an unconstitutional taking, from granting variances from this provision of the Code. We believe that it is already prohibited, except in instances where Council chooses to allow it and rezone a property to the CED zoning designation. 55 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through The Planning Commission at its meeting of February 20, 2007, recommended that Bill No. 070011 not be approved. Bill No. 070012 would amend the provisions of the Commercial Entertainment District chapter Zoning Code by providing that no ordinance 10 designating a CED may be enacted unless a Neighborhood Improvement District for that area has first been created. While we understand the need for gaming to properly and completely address the impacts that it will have on the surrounding community, we believe that a conclusion that those impacts can be mitigated only through the enactment of a Neighborhood Improvement District is incorrect. There are several other possible models that may be implemented, and the choice of this model is premature because a Neighborhood Improvement District is not necessarily 56 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 the right vehicle to meet the needs of 3 these communities. 4 The Planning Commission at its 5 meeting of February 20, 2007, 6 recommended that Bill No. 070012 not be 7 approved. 8 Bill No. 070013 would amend 9 Section 14-1605 of the Philadelphia Code 10 by adding Pay Day Lenders as a regulated 11 use and by prohibiting regulated uses 12 within a thousand feet of any property 13 zoned Commercial Entertainment District. Similar businesses such as check-cashing establishments and pawn shops have been designated as regulated uses under provisions of the Zoning Code for many years, and we believe that Pay Day Lenders are exactly the type of use that are inappropriate in close proximity to the gaming facilities. However, we believe that the definition of "Pay Day Lenders" is overbroad and will potentially eliminate perfectly legitimate and appropriate 57 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 commerce. As such, we have been 3 researching the wording for an 4 appropriate amendment to that 5 definition, and will respond shortly. 6 The Planning Commission at its 7 meeting of February 20, 2007, 8 recommended that Bill No. " 12 This concludes my testimony. I 13 appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning along with Romulo Diaz to testify on this important issue and would be happy to answer any questions from the committee.
Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee. 58 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
Just one 6 question. 7 When you discuss Bill No. 8 070012, you say at the end here, "There 9 are several possible models that may be 10 implemented, and the choice of 11 Neighborhood Improvement District is not 12 necessarily the right vehicle." 13 Could you be a little more specific? What else -- I mean, what other possibilities could you have in mind?
Well, there could simply be a contractual agreement between a community group and gaming interests and also the possibility of a Special Services District.
Okay. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: May I amplify on that answer?
Sure. 59 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: One of the specific areas that the Administration is currently undertaking is the negotiation of what we've called a "developer agreement" with each of the two licensees. And not unlike the priority issues that the Mayor in his letter of last December to the Gaming Control Board identified, there were priority areas for review of the five applications. Those same priority areas include fiscal impacts like public safety issues and neighborhood impacts. Those same priority issues are being used as a framework for the developer negotiations. So we're looking specifically at what kind of community reinvestments are being agreed to by the licensees as we consider the ultimate plans of development that will come before the operating departments, the Planning Commission, and then ultimately before 60 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 City Council as part of the CED process. 3
All 4 right. Thank you. 5 Thank you, Madam President. 6
7 You're welcome. 8 Are there any other questions 9 from members of the committee? 10 The Chair recognizes Councilman 11 DiCicco. 12
Just to go 13 back to an earlier question that was raised by my colleague Councilman Clarke to the City Solicitor, it is not unusual that City Council has, in the past, taken a different position than the recommendations of the City Solicitor. I can remember a couple years ago, this Council approved the funding for condominium trash collection. The City Solicitor's opinion was that this council did not have the right to make those decisions. We went to court, and we were successful -- we, meaning 61 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Council. Although the trash is still not being picked up, we did win that battle in court. So I just wanted to point that out to my colleague that it's not (indiscernible) of the Solicitor's opinion that comes down to something that we are definitely bound by it; it is strictly that, an opinion. And I do respect the Solicitor's opinion, and I respect the hard work that he's done on all of these matters. Just to go back to Mr. Chapman, when the Planning Commission made its recommendations on these bills -- and this is unusual. You and I and the Planning Commission have really worked quite a well over the past eleven years. We've worked on some major development in particular in my district. But all of those development schemes had a component in them that is missing in this, and that is that there 62 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 was public input. I'm a process guy. 3 (Applause.) 4 (Cheers.) 5
I'm a 6 process person. And I believe in that 7 process, although sometimes it takes a 8 little bit more time to get us to where 9 we eventually want to be. 10 But all of these community 11 groups have taken the time out of their 12 lives, their personal lives, with no 13 financial reward, and took the time to work with developers -- small development, large development. Just recently, the folks in Northern Liberties, after six, seven months of negotiations and deliberations, along with the Planning Commission's input, approved the development of a 65-story high-rise development on Delaware Avenue, and no 23 one ever in their wildest dreams would ever believe -- and myself included initially -- that a community group 63 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through would have approved and given the green light to such a development. But we did it because the folks who live in that neighborhood had an opportunity to talk about the issues as it related to that development, what the daily impact to their lives would be, and we worked through a process. We are not permitted to do that under the Act 71. And for the City and the Planning Commission, in my opinion, with no disrespect, to take the position that, well, we just have to basically roll over on this one and agree that we're going to lose in court, and therefore, let's not do these bills, I think, is irresponsible for us to do that. (Applause.) (Cheers.)
And furthermore, in your testimony on -- and I'll -- CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: 64 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 Councilman --
-- in the second paragraph, the arrival of new businesses that provide thousands of jobs -- CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Councilman --
-- could be, could be the most important new development in the City's history in the past 50 years. It could be, but it also could be a disaster. We don't -- (Applause.) (Cheers.)
And I'm a pro-development guy, 'cause there are a lot of people in this room today who, I'm sure, will put the political spin on that I'm anti-development. I've been probably one of the most pro-development people in this council in the last ten years. You know, I authored the ten-year tax 65 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through basement that caused the building boom in this city, so I don't -- and I'm proud of that. So I'm not against development; I'm for development. I'm for development if it takes into consideration what the impact to the neighborhoods would be. And when you look at the remarks in this on , did anyone take a look at what the possible negative impacts to the surrounding businesses would be in the southern end of Columbus Boulevard? (Applause.) (Cheers.)
Has anyone taken into consideration the 15 to 25,000 additional cars that will be driving down that corridor, the Delaware Avenue Columbus Boulevard, on a daily basis? Whether Ikea, whether Home Depot, whether -- and I won't even use 66 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Wal-Mart 'cause they're not union, but the other businesses down there will they be able to survive? Will they be able to compete to get their customers in? There are people who work in those facilities who are primarily Philadelphians who are earning a salary to support their families. Will those facilities eventually have to close up because the customers will not be able to get to them? We don't know that. We don't know that because we have not been permitted to engage in that dialogue. And I will tell you, I will tell you, having represented the folks along that corridor from Whitman all the way up through Port Richmond and beyond: These are not people who are saying -- these are not NIMBYs, and I can tell you that for a fact. Yes, sometimes they get a little concerned. " 4 But I will tell you, and I 5 think you would agree, on the eleven 6 years that I have been here and the 7 eleven years that I've been working with 8 these civic associations, we've always 9 come to a compromise to allow for 10 something to be built in everyone's best 11 interests, not in just the interests of 12 casino operators. 13 And that's what we're fighting for today. ) CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Councilman, if I may respond. I think there were a number of questions, and let me try to respond to them very quickly. Yes, you're right in connection with the condo trash case that, in fact, the ultimate decision was that the -- that the legislative will with respect 68 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 to a type of service -- not as to the 3 specifics but as to a class of 4 service -- was one that should be 5 respected. 6 And, in fact, that decision and 7 many of the discussions that I have had 8 and the City Solicitor's Office has had 9 with members of Council informs the 10 way -- the perspective I bring to this 11 issue today. 12 But that, you will recall, was 13 an issue where we had an institutional difference between the executive and administrative branch on the one hand and the legislative branch on the other. We haven't gotten there yet. And so, when I look at these issues about bills being considered where the executive branch hasn't spoken, there hasn't been passage, I'm looking at it from the perspective of what if? And I am attempting to be properly discrete recognizing that we're 69 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 early in this process, and many of the 3 concerns that I would have from a legal 4 perspective could be felt later down the 5 process as part of the practical result 6 of decisions being reached today. 7 But I have tried to be 8 balanced, I've tried to be informed with 9 regard to my perspective today based 10 upon the experience such as the condo 11 trash case, and I think I have done so. 12 Secondly, with respect to 13 community input, we also have to, you know, remind ourselves that this is not the first time that this matter has come before Council or the Administration or the City generally. With regard to the Philadelphia Gaming Advisory Task Force, my recollection is that that was established in 2005. And one of the first efforts that it engaged in was in a -- to schedule and hold a number of community forums throughout all of the districts, Councilmatic districts, and 70 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 in virtually all parts of the City to 3 make sure that there was early 4 opportunities for community views to be 5 heard on five applications before we 6 knew which of the applicants would be 7 successful in receiving a license. ) 13 CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: You and I specifically have been in meetings with community groups where we have talked about the CED legislation, heard their concerns.
And one of the things that we've also, I think, built into the CED process is that this is going to be an opportunity for the public to be heard both in terms of the plan of the development review by the Planning Commission, which is an integral part of that process; and secondly, once a 71 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through decision has been reached and a recommendation made to Council, there will also be an opportunity for Council with respect to its review of the plan of development for the two districts once they're created to also hold public hearings. I have been informed by the Mayor that he intends to begin a series of community engagements in the very near future particularly focused on these two casino locations and the adjacent neighborhoods. So from 2005 until today, there have been numerous opportunities for the community to be heard. ) CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: I am not trying to justify today --
72 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Please -- excuse me. Please, let's have respect for each other. Thank you. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Thank you, Madam President.
9 Please proceed. 10 CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: I'm not 11 trying to justify today the decision of 12 Gaming Control Board. They've stated 13 the reasons for the issuance of the two licenses, and -- and they're the ones who are responsible for supporting that in connection with any potential appeals. But with respect to the City's efforts, I can say that there have been numerous meetings. There will be more scheduled. There will be public hearings in connection with any Planning Commission review of a plan of development for either the Foxwoods or the SugarHouse Casino site. 73 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through And there will also be, as part of the CED legislative process, an opportunity for the public to be heard in connection with the City Council's consideration of the plan of development for these two casino sites. So I think it is important that the record reflect that not only is community input important, not only am I trying to argue for the opportunity to continue to have that input by demonstrating that we have a reasonable set of regulations through the CED process applicable to these -- to these two licensees, but I'm sure that we will continue to hear from the community, and that is their right, and I think that should inform the decision-making process with regard to the plan of development review.
Thank you. And I do appreciate your comments, Mr. Diaz. And the Mayor has indicated to me as well that he wants to have 74 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through communities meetings. The only exception I would take as far as the City's Gaming Task Force, which, I think, did a good job (indiscernible) the fact that the selection committee, site selection committee made no recommendations nor did they disapprove any of the sites. (Applause.)
That, to 12 me, is (inaudible). 13 Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just wanted to make one reference to a response to a reference about my questioning the City Solicitor about a potential opinion to my colleague. 75 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through In no way did I mean that if I sought an opinion that I would necessarily pay any attention to it. (Laughter.)
All right. 7 I was wondering what happened. I 8 thought it was a new Councilman Clarke 9 here. 10
Well, I do 11 believe that it is prudent to seek the 12 advice of counsel when you're in a 13 legal -- involved in a legal issue. So while I will seek the personally -- and I'm not sure if other Councilmembers or the Chair will seek that opinion. I'm not saying here today that I will abide by that.
But I think it's prudent to understand the nature of the legislation, what from the -- our lawyers' perspective is legal and not legal and then proceed appropriately. 76 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
And by no 3 means did I suggest -- want to suggest 4 or give anyone the thought that you 5 would automatically agree with the 6 Solicitor's opinion. I know that for a 7 fact. 8
Are 11 there any other questions from members 12 of the committee? 13 (No further questions.)
Gentlemen, thank you. CITY SOLICITOR DIAZ: Thank you.
I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Steve Szapor. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.and proceed with 77 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through your testimony.
My name is Steve 4 Szapor. I'm President of the Innovation 5 Group. 6 The Innovation Group is a 7 private consulting firm, and our role in 8 this process was, we were one of the 9 consultants on the task force, and I'm 10 here today to provide a few comments on 11 our process and our Task Force Report. 12 I think from an overall 13 perspective, the City of Philadelphia has a special opportunity to have two casino entertainment facilities targeted in the City. Our forecasted gaming numbers out of these two facilities are significant. The numbers approximate $700 million annually on a stabilized basis, which would put the City in the arena of a major gaming destination. In addition, there's a variety of ancillary revenues that go along with that -- hotels revenues, food and 78 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through beverage revenues, and things of that nature. The combination of access, location, and proximity to the City center and the downtown as well as the physical products that are being proposed to be built here should really combine to provide significant economic benefits to the City. And I think outlined in that Task Force Report were four specific economic benefits: The first one is job creation. You know, both direct and indirect jobs will be provided by these type of developments. Overall, the task force estimates that over 7,000 direct and indirect jobs, both through construction as well as ongoing operation, would be created. These are just not jobs that provide minimum wages but also are professional jobs and jobs that people can utilize to develop a career out of. Many people in the gaming industry today 79 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 started at the bottom level and worked 3 themselves to be top executives and at 4 top-level positions. 5 The other economic benefit is 6 tax relief to Pennsylvanians. The task 7 force estimated a 13 percent drop in 8 residents' wage taxes alone. 9 The third impact would be 10 economic and tourism development. As 11 you know, a portion of the gaming tax 12 receipts will go towards the 13 Pennsylvania Economic and Tourism Fund, estimated at $150 million a year. This is a significant amount of dollars, and for Philadelphia, some of these funds will be targeted to help pay for the expansion of the Convention Center and other promotional efforts. These types of efforts are critical to helping the City's tourism and convention business, and will allow Philadelphia to be competitive with other major cities. More and more research on 80 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 tourists and travelers show the 3 importance of entertainment and night 4 life in an overall destination 5 experience and in people's decisions to 6 visit a particular location. 7 Philadelphia needs to be able offer a 8 competitive nighttime entertainment 9 experience for conventioneers and 10 tourists alike. 11 And then, finally -- not 12 finally, but a fourth economic impact is 13 obviously the host fee that is paid directly to the City. We've heard testimony this morning about what that host fee will be, approximately to 17 $30 million annually, and the potential 18 uses that it could go for. 19 The facilities being proposed 20 will have the distinct advantage of operating in an environment whereby the local and regional population base has had significant exposure to a variety of gaming alternatives already. This should allow these facilities to ramp up 81 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 quickly and help ensure success. 3 One just needs to look at the 4 database of an Atlantic City casino or a 5 Delaware casino, and it becomes evident 6 that a significant portion of 7 Philadelphia residents and those of 8 surrounding counties have a propensity 9 to game already do so. These folks are 10 gamers that will now have a local 11 option, and it will allow them to keep 12 their expenditures in the State of 13 Pennsylvania.
And for once, Pennsylvania can attract residents from the neighboring states of New Jersey and Delaware, for example, that have benefitted from Pennsylvania residents spending their money in those states for almost 30 years. The task force also looked at a variety of social impacts. The task force spent considerable time and effort analyzing these potential social impact issues and costs from gaming being put 82 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through into the City. For one, a poll conducted as part of the process noted that the majority of Philadelphians do not believe that gaming will be a detriment to the overall quality of life. While there have been several studies around the country conducted regarding crime, there does not appear to be a statistical link between the introduction of gaming in other big cities and an increase in crime rates. In fact, improving economic conditions that reduce unemployment and improve policing can lead to a decline in some rates. 9 percent of the population. However, casinos today have played an active role in dealing with 83 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 these types of issues. Through a 3 variety of training programs, they've 4 been able to help identify -- help 5 identify and deal with problem gaming. 6 They've implemented policies and 7 procedures to minimize them and are 8 setting aside funds by the State to fund 9 programs. 10 As previously noted, many 11 Philadelphians and the population in the 12 area have already been exposed to gaming 13 for many years, and it is likely that many of the problem in pathological gaming issues have already manifested themselves. In summary, casinos have been in Atlantic City and Delaware for many years and are now coming to Pennsylvania. Their impact from an economic intact perspective is widely known, and evidence in other jurisdictions supporting the positive benefits is overwhelming. Philadelphia should not be left 84 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 out. There is a unique opportunity to 3 bring more people into the City and for 4 them to spend more money and to enjoy 5 themselves. 6 Again, while there has been 7 some concern over potential crime and 8 social costs, I think we have to go back 9 and respond and look at the task force 10 study, which really noted that that 11 impact has not statistically been seen 12 in other jurisdictions. 13 This concludes my remarks in this regard. I appreciate the opportunity to provide them and would be open to answer any questions at this point in time.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Excuse my voice. Councilman DiCicco had earlier raised some issues relative to job 85 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through creation and potential job loss. I've heard a lot about job creation. And I'll tell you the truth: I'm conflicted. I'm torn between wanting the revenues that can do so many good things and deal ling with some of the fallout relative to neighborhood environment and also the jobs. In your analysis of the effect of job creation, both the construction industry and permanent jobs, did you also look at the impact of neighborhood businesses -- taverns, restaurants, retail like Ikea and Home Depot, and those other places? But more importantly, have you looked at the impact on trucking -- offloading and onloading of cargo ships -- and what impact that would have on the Port of Philadelphia? (Applause.)
And the reason I raise that is because of my knowledge of the port not only from what 86 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Frank raised relative to -- Councilman DiCicco raised relative to retail access by vehicle. Do we get to a point, because of the influx of automobiles there, that our trucking is slowed to the point that certain shipping companies may choose other ports because of the delays in accessing the facilities that we have in the southern end of Delaware Avenue? (Applause.)
And if I gain a job, which may be a good-paying job and has a future, moving up from a person who services slot machines to management, do I also run the risk of losing a job that's paying a sustaining wage to a family in South Philadelphia or in our region?
And I apologize 'cause I probably should have prefaced my remarks with the -- with the aspects of the task force that we were involved in. 87 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through And we were involved in the estimating of the gaming revenue potential, and we were involved in evaluating some of the social-impact costs as well as providing some qualitative insight into the pros and cons of locations from the gaming generation perspective. The economic impacts from a job creation and things of that nature were done by a separate consulting firm.
Now, the separate group, or the separate consultant, did they do this analysis as to what potential impact there may be or may not be relative to congestion that's caused because -- obviously, the casinos want people to come. People are going to come by two methods probably. They're going to come by car or they're going to come by bus, and maybe some people from the neighborhood will walk over. That impact of that congestion, 88 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through while we're trying to figure out how we can mitigate it through ramp construction and all of the other kind of things we're going to do to mitigate to get people directly into the sites, that doesn't happen overnight, and there may be a period of three to five years or more before we have that construction of those ramps and other mitigation factors. I need to know from my own perspective the impact that that time period has on our container traffic, on our truck traffic, and on those jobs that I don't want to trade off on. I mean, is there anything in that report that indicates that?
You know, in the full 375-page report, I'm not sure what's in -- again, what's in that. I can't answer for that other consulting firm. I apologize.
All right. But it's available for us to at least 89 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through look at?
I think they 6 described their methodology and what -- 7 and whether they took that into 8 consideration or not. 9
Okay, but I 10 -- 'cause I do think, you know, we want 11 to try to do our best by everyone 12 here -- neighbors, residents, 13 businesses, you know, construction industry, new casino workers. We want to try to make everybody as happy as possible. But in order to make that decision, I really got to know -- or we need to know -- what impact in the short term and long term it may have on other important industries in Philadelphia like our movement of cargo.
Thank 90 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Savage.
Good 6 morning. 7 Could you comment on how much 8 revenue is going to be brought in out of 9 state from tourism and money? 10
Yeah. And that is 11 in the report. 12 I think the general range is 13 about 50 percent of the gaming revenues were going to be from outside the state. In fact, the report showed that about 67 percent of all wagering would be non-Philadelphians. So there is a significant amount of wagering and revenues that will be brought in from outside of the immediate area.
Thank you. Any other questions from 91 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through members of the committee of this witness? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
7 Thank you, Madam President. 8 For my own information, tell us 9 a little bit about Innovation Group. 10 And have you provided the kind of 11 insight and evaluation in other 12 municipalities that you just shared with 13 us today for Philadelphia County?
Yes. We're a -- we're a private consulting firm. We've been around for -- for over 12 years. We do a variety of work for both gaming operators as well as, you know, government entities. We've worked in situations both here in the U.S., in towns out in California, and we've actually worked for governments, state governments, and, you know, foreign governments in terms of evaluating their aspect of, you know, 92 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through what is the potential gaming revenues and income from -- from gaming from that perspective.
6 Ask so your focus is on the benefits or 7 liabilities of the industry separate 8 from community input, community opinion, 9 community participation. 10
12 Okay. Thank you for your testimony. 13 Thank you, Madam President. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Going back to Councilman Kenney's questions when, the task force looked at the issue of gaming and the possible -- did they look at possible impacts to the port activities and other retail establishments along the corridor 93 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through of Delaware Avenue Columbus Boulevard.
Again, as I 4 mentioned I should have prefaced my 5 comments. There was a separate 6 consulting firm that dealt with those 7 economic impact and those potential 8 impacts. 9
Were those 10 recommendations given eventually or 11 turned over to the task force for 12 consideration? 13
Do you know anything about the site selection committee of the Gaming Task Force?
Do you know who sat on that task force, and do you know whether or not they made any recommendations for any of the sites?
I believe the input we provided was sort of -- was on the advantages and the challenges of the 94 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through various sites that were considered at that time. Whether they -- whether they took that information and actually made specific recommendations, I'm not sure.
So to your 7 knowledge, you don't know if they 8 rejected any of the sites either? 9
'Cause 11 it's my understanding that there -- they 12 were silent on the issue. 13 The site selection committee of the Philadelphia Gaming Task Force whose job I thought it was to make recommendations for sites, any of the five sites that were in contention, my understanding is they were silent. There was no recommendation for or no 20 recommendation against.
I believe the report listed each site and the pros and cons of each. I'm not sure they made specific recommendations.
I will 95 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through take that as they did not make a recommendation either way. I'm wondering why we had a site selection committee in the first place, but thank you. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank 10 you. 11 Any other questions from 12 members of the committee? 13 (No further questions.)
Thank you very much, sir. I would also like the record to reflect that the committee has been joined by Councilman O'Neill and Councilwoman Reynolds-Brown. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call the next witness. MR. McPHERSON: The next witnesses are SugarHouse representatives Bob Sheldon, Dan Keating, Melanie Shaw, Greg Carlin. 96 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through (Witnesses come forward.)
7 Please identify yourself for the record 8 and proceed with your testimony. 9
My name is Bob 10 Sheldon and I'm the president of 11 SugarHouse Casino. 12 Council President Verna, 13 Councilman Clarke and the other members of the Rules Committee, good morning.
My name is Bob Sheldon, President the SugarHouse Casino. I have with me: Dan Keating, one of the owners; and Melanie Shaw, who is helping lead our community relations efforts and diversity efforts; as well as Greg Carlin, our chief executive officer. 97 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
Seated behind us 5 are: Joe Martin, who is our director of 6 procurement; Joanne Weber, in charge of 7 human resources; and Debra Marchesi, who 8 will be our chief financial officer; as 9 well as John Donnelley, our counsel is 10 here as well, and he has a deep 11 background in gaming issues. 12 Thank you very much for 13 allowing us to testify today. I know the specific question before the committee is the package of bills that would change the zoning process for our site and delay the beginning of our construction and our hiring, but I would like to, if I may, take a few moments to step back and explain to you why we picked the site that we did what kind of company we are. We're extremely proud of the fact that our proposal was rated as the best of five city proposals by the State 98 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through Gaming Control Board, an entity which has three of its seven members, including its chair, from Philadelphia. We believe we were rated as such because of the totality of our proposal -- our facility, our location, and our team. SugarHouse Casino will be owned and operated by HSP Gaming, a limited partnership. Our ownership and management have developed, managed, built, financed, and designed some of North America's most successful casinos and urban mixed-use projects. Locally, members of our ownership group have developed the Four Seasons Hotel, One and Two Logan Square, the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Lincoln Financial Field, and the Penn's Landing Hyatt. With our local partners, we have deep ties and a firm commitment to the Greater Philadelphia community. Our site, situated on acres along the Delaware River, is currently 99 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 13 neglected and abandoned. It already has a zoning designation that permits our use. Our neighbors are primarily industrial and entertainment, and we will have ample free parking for our employees and customers to keep cars off neighboring residential streets. There is good visibility of our site, both from Interstate 95 as well as the Ben Franklin Bridge. And, importantly, access to our site is good. As you may recall the Mayor's Philadelphia Gaming Advisory Task Force found that the north central Delaware sites where SugarHouse is has excellent highway access, and local street congestion would be minimized. The closest major intersection, the Girard Avenue interchange, is already scheduled to be expanded by the Commonwealth, ensuring that traffic will not flow through surrounding neighborhoods. PennDOT has also developed a plan to minimize congestion 100 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 while the interchange is being built. 3 This was important to us because we 4 don't want traffic congestion anymore 5 than our neighbors do because it hurts 6 our business. 7 It's for all of these reasons 8 and many more that we selected the site. 9 As you know, the way the 10 Pennsylvania Gaming Act is written, 11 applicants must control their site when 12 they apply for the license. Our group 13 analyzed more than a dozen sites over a two-year period, including many of the sites examined in the Mayor's Gaming Advisory Task Force Report. We could have selected another site; we selected this one because it has all of the characteristics that will make for a successful business. The strengths of the site are also why, when the State Supreme Court struck down the preemption clause on zoning issues, we were less concerned about that than others because our site 101 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 did not have some of the same problems 3 that others did. 4 When fully built out, the 5 SugarHouse Casino will be an exciting 6 $550 million casino and entertainment 7 project. The first full phase of 8 development will include space for 3,000 9 slot machines, dining, over 3,000 free 10 parking-garage spaces, and a 6,000 11 square foot multi-use events center.
12 Future expansions will include 13 development of a new 500-room hotel, expanded dining options, and a spasm. And for the first time in a generation for residents of Fishtown, the Delaware River will no longer be something they can see but not approach. Our proposal opens the waterfront to our neighbors with a public and accessible riverfront promenade, which will create a peaceful outdoor haven for visitors and locals. In crafting this waterfront promenade, we've listened closely to the 102 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through residents of Fishtown, even adjusting our original plans because we heard their desire for great public space along the water. We believe SugarHouse fits perfectly within the City's desire to revitalize the entire waterfront and make it more accessible. In fact, the design was specifically crafted to mesh with that vision. As much as we believe that this project will benefit our company will also benefit our company, we also believe it will benefit our immediate neighborhood and the larger Philadelphia community. According to the Task Force Report, gaming represents a once-in-a-lifetime economic development opportunity for the City. For starters, the development of the two new casinos will have a larger economic impact on the City and its economy than anything in over 50 103 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 years. 2 billion in gaming 5 taxes over the first five years of 6 operation, which will fund tax-wage 7 reductions for all who live and work in 8 Philadelphia; 9 - $17 million in host fees 10 payable to Philadelphia, 5 million of 11 which will go directly to the school 12 system; 13 - 7 to $8 million annually in additional local taxes; - the expansion of the Convention Center, which will create additional jobs and additional tourism revenues; - and the creation of an estimated 1100 permanent and high-quality jobs at an estimated average compensation of $40,000, including benefits. We're committed to hiring locally and contracting locally. In the 104 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 other gaming properties our majority 3 owners have, they've established an 4 exemplary record of hiring locally and 5 using local companies and contractors 6 and suppliers. 7 When we held jobs forums in 8 Fishtown earlier this year, more than 9 300 people came, so we know there's a 10 desire for jobs among our immediate 11 neighbors. 12 Furthermore, SugarHouse Casino 13 is dedicated to diversity in hiring, procurement, and contracting. As part of our application to the Casino Gaming Control Board, we submitted a detailed diversity plan, which we will be expected to live up to. This is not an empty commitment, as evidenced by the makeup of our senior management team. Other local businesses will benefit from the operations of SugarHouse as well. In addition to the direct jobs SugarHouse creates, we expect it to create an additional 2,000 105 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 new retail and hospitality jobs outside 3 the casino and another 2600 other 4 spin-off jobs in the service industries. 5 We're ready to go, and we 6 believe we're on pace to get the project 7 started as early as this fall. 8 Before I close, though, I want 9 to address two factually-false 10 statements that some have been making. 11 The first is the claim that 12 crime will increase in areas surrounding 13 the SugarHouse. According to the Mayor's Task Force Report, crime rates in comparable cities revealed no 16 discernible correlation between casinos and crime. The fact -- in fact, the task force study suggests that crime rates have, for the most part, declined during the period analyzed. )
But more to the point, let me make it clear that if there is an increase in crime around our facility, we won't be successful as a 106 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through business. We want people to come to SugarHouse, enjoy our restaurants, and play our slots. If people are afraid to do so, we lose business. Its the nature of our business and it is in our interest to make sure crime does not go up. The second factually-false statement I have heard some say is that there was not ample time for the community to comment on our proposal, the implication being that we are trying to run roughshod over our neighbors. I cannot address what other applicants for gaming licenses did, but I can state flatly that for SugarHouse, we meet repeatedly with members of the community and have constantly sought to work with them. In addition to the two days of public forum hosted by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board at Drexel University, we held at least ten public meetings, forums, and roundtable 107 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 discussions in the community before our 3 license was awarded. 4 We met with leaders of all 5 riverward community groups: The board 6 of the New Kensington Community 7 Development Council, the Board of 8 Fishtown Neighbors, and had multiple 9 meeting with the North Delaware Unity 10 Coalition. 11 we also participated in open 12 meetings in the auditorium of Adaire 13 Elementary, at a Port Richmond Neighbors Association Forum on gaming, and two general membership meetings of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association. We spoke at a gaming roundtable sponsored by the Fishtown Spirt, and hosted a walking tour of Fishtown. These public meetings were all publicized and well attended and did not include the dozens of private meetings we had with other community leaders or the jobs forum. 108 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 There were also community 3 meetings in every Council District as 4 part of the Philadelphia Gaming Advisory 5 Task Force. 6 We continue to be committed to 7 working with our neighbors to strengthen 8 our immediate surrounding areas. It's 9 one of the reasons we've committed a 10 minimum of a million dollars annually to 11 a Special Services District to be 12 controlled at the sole discretion of the 13 community to keep the area clean, well maintained, and safe. In closing, let me state we're ready to begin construction. We're ready to put a thousand people to work, building our facility over the next few months. We're ready to pay tens of millions of dollars in taxable wages over the next year. We're anxious to begin operations that will mean thousands of new jobs and millions of dollars of new tax revenue to the City. These bills would delay all of 109 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2 that. We believe that they're bad for 3 us and for the entire City of 4 Philadelphia, and I hope you don't 5 support them. 6 Thank you very much. 7
Thank you, Madam President. Sir, you had gone through a list of meetings and interfaces that you had with the community over the past number of months. Were you ever at any point in time close to a deal, so to speak, or an arrangement or an agreement with people in that community? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Councilman, we've actually provided a draft of a community-benefits agreement that -- 110 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
I'm sorry. Greg 5 Carlin. I'm the CEO of SugarHouse. 6 We've actually provided a draft 7 of a community-benefits agreement to the 8 North Delaware Avenue Unity Coalition, I 9 believe, over a month ago. 10
I'm sorry. 11 What groups does that Unity Coalition 12 represent, if you know? 13
There's eight groups in that group. I -- I don't have all of them off the top of my head.
And how 111 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through many people in that coalition were involved in the casting of this potential or had input in this potential benefits agreement?
Well, we had 7 several meetings with that group, and I 8 recall at least ten people from each of 9 the -- you know, ten people in 10 attendance that were representing that 11 coalition. 12
And they 13 represented the leadership of those organizations, or just members?
My understanding is they represented they leadership of those -- those organizations.
Okay. And please proceed with what happened with them.
We provided -- you know, based on discussions we've had, we provided a draft of a community-benefits agreement. You know, we support the concept of special services district 112 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through creation. Unfortunately, the -- this group has placed a moratorium on meeting with us, and so they have not responded to our proposal.
I -- I really -- I 11 really couldn't -- sir, I really 12 couldn't tell you, sir. 13 You know, we -- you know, we think it's unfortunate, and we really hope the moratorium is lifted soon and that we can continue our dialogue with them.
Now, certainly, there's a number of people here today who are going to testify, and I'm sure that they will characterize their position as they see it to be. Could you characterize for us your opinion on how close that community-benefits agreement was. 113 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
Well, you know, we're certain -- we've negotiated in good faith with the community, and we're certainly committed to providing this money and setting up a Special Services District. I really can't comment on the other side as to what they're --
No, no, no. 11 I'm not asking you to suppose what they 12 think now. 13
I'm just asking you, in your opinion, did you feel that you were in a position to have the sign-on-the-dotted-line kind of thing?
Well, again, we provided the drafting, you know, like in any agreement like this, there's normally negotiations back and forth between the parties, and we just haven't had any response from our -- from what we've submitted. 114 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
Could you just kind of delineate for us what some of those community benefits draft language is.
Well, I think the 7 primary feature was a -- I don't have a 8 copy with me. 9
But I can 11 certainly provide Council with copies of 12 it. 13
Our counsel's here; we'd be happy to do that. But the primary feature was funding of a Special Services District that would, you know, fund at a minimum of a million dollars per year for really the local community to decide, you know, based on elections, you know, how that 115 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through money should be spent.
Is there 7 anything -- I'm sorry. You look like 8 you want to add something. 9
I -- there were 10 other issues about having open 11 communications to -- in advance of job 12 opportunities, working with the local 13 community to direct training opportunities, keeping as much open communication there so they would have knowledge of everything that we were doing as far as opportunities and as well as local businesses.
And work jointly on things like traffic mitigation and those kinds of things. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But just as importantly is that --
I'm sorry. You have to identify yourself. 116 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
I'm sorry. Melanie Shaw. An important part of that is that the board of that was going to be controlled by the community with no 7 representation from SugarHouse. 8
Okay. Are 9 there -- I don't know whether or not we 10 have on the schedule today anyone 11 testifying on behalf of Foxwoods. 12
I would appreciate, when they get to the table, that they also talk about whatever interaction or whatever discussion they've had with the communities surrounding their particular facility. 'Cause, again, Councilman DiCicco's worked very diligently through the course of this whole really difficult situation, and it's a 117 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through difficult situation for everybody 'cause it's a new thing for you us. And I frankly am very upset with the way in which the legislature -- and it's not your fault -- handed us this -- or handed off to us this hot potato, you know, with very little ability on our part to legislate, with the exception of what we're dealing with now, to legislate any of this. I mean, none of us here at this table voted on Act 71. None of us ever voted -- (Applause.)
None of us at this table ever voted to preempt the zoning code. I mean, there were people who were represented in that area that voted against the zoning -- to preempt zoning code at least four times. And I understand and I empathize with my colleague who is now dealing two of these facilities in his district, and I know Councilman Clarke 118 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through has his district touching that also. We're doing our best to protect people when the legislature basically just kind of jammed it to us. And despite all of the issues relative to job creation and revenue, we have serious problems that we have to deal with, and we have handcuffs on because of what the legislature has done to us. But -- (Applause.)
And I can only speak to what I have heard, through the Councilman's efforts and through people in the community, that the real problem here was not necessarily your proposal and your activity relative to the neighbors, but Foxwoods was perhaps the worst site and has had the worst problems in dealing with resolving their issues. So I'm -- you know, I'm not suggesting that we split this up, but I 119 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through mean, if you guys are -- and we're going to hear from the community, but if you were that close to a benefits agreement with the neighbors, I mean -- and most of the bulk of the complaint comes about as a result of Foxwoods' location and their congestion issues and their impact on the community, I mean I think we really have to seriously look at that. So anybody else who wants to testify when they come up and give their version of what they think this is or what their interaction with you was, certainly I'll accept on good faith their views. But it seems like you've kind of done your homework in dealing with the community, and I mean, we are where we are now, and we'll see how it turns out, but I just wanted to say that.
And we have -- and despite -- you know, we talked about a lot of other meetings that may have been one-on-one. For instance, we've 120 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through gone out to the Fishtown community, walked door to door, and tried to touch as many people as we can and hear their views and --
Have you 7 met with other elected officials other 8 than Councilmembers? 9
And I just wanted -- one other point. I've been listening to some of the comments made earlier. I mean, you know, we -- our original plan we brought to the community back in March of 2006, and there was some -- people had some criticism, and good criticism of our plan, and, you know, we went back to the drawing board and we changed some things. 121 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through We made our open space bigger, more accessible to the community. We changed our entrance, bringing it closer to Delaware Avenue. And these were all suggestions we got in community meetings. So I really do think that we -- we've tried to address community concerns and work with the community and to be an open listener.
If you 13 could just indulge me for a second, Council President. I have one issue relative to riparian rights that's -- it's a very kind of a arcane type of legal issues relative to the State's control over riverbed and areas that used to be riverbed. And you have some, I believe, some riparian-rights issues of your own. Could you explain what that is and how that impacts you.
Dan, do you want to take that? 122 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through 2
Councilman, I'm Dan Keating. I'm the chairman of Keating Building Corporation, and we've been involved in this process since day one -- actually, since 2003. And there are lawyers and other qualified people to talk about the legality of riparian rights. But from a practical standpoint as it relates to SugarHouse, it effectively cuts the site in half, so the end result of that from our end would be that our building structure would be higher and thinner. It would take the back portion of the property, the water side, and cut it off from public use, which would be a grave mistake and something I don't think any other developer along the Delaware has encountered.
Will the lack of acquisition of riparian rights cause some of the amenities and givebacks, so to speak, that you've 123 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through given to the community or at least negotiated, would that change access to the river? Would it change how the -- the footprint of the building, obviously you've said the footprint of the building is affected. How does that affect the visual and physical amenities of the property?
Well, okay. Just 11 add to that, as Bob Sheldon referred 12 earlier, we went through an exhaustive 13 study of different sites. We 14 actually took a casino model and 15 developed it on 11 of those 15 sites. The SugarHouse site was not chosen by accident, it wasn't a marriage of convenience. It's acres of land 19 with two lights at Shackamaxon and 20 Frankford Avenue. 21 If you were to take that 22 22 acres and cut it in half, the part that would be developed is the part closest to Delaware Avenue. The part that would not be developed would be the ten acres 124 2/21/07 RULES - Bills 070006, 08 through back by the river. Access to that and all of the promenades that have been planned and worked through with the community groups would disappear.